PEACE PROCESS FOR SOUTH ASIA

Patron Lt Gen (Retd) SARDAR FS LODI examines

the traditional options for peace in the region and

recommends processing new options based on workshop

held in the UNIVERSITY of KARACHI

The Department of International Affairs was given a grant of U.S. $ 73,000/- from Ford Foundation for a research project entitled Peace by Process: Lessons for India and Pakistan from the Middle East. The project was launched on August 15, 1997 and will last for 18 months up to February 1999, Dr. Moonis Ahmar, Associate Professor at the Department of International Relations is the Project Director and Professor Talat A. Wizarat, Chairperson of the Department is the Patron. Five Research Assistants have been appointed to facilitate the smooth functioning of the research project.

One of the objectives of the project is to initiate a debate in South Asia about the successes and failures of the Middle East Peace Process and its relevance to South Asia and to study the prospects and implications of such a process on India and Pakistan.

The project plans to create awareness among the academic and policy-making circles in South Asia of the lessons of the Middle East peace process and the importance of a similar exercise in the region. The project will study various techniques used by the Arabs and the Israelis or by any other conflicting parties (e.g. The Helsinki Process) to reach a consensus on settling of long-standing conflicts and try to find the relevance of these techniques and efforts for bringing peace to the South Asian region.

A series of workshops have been organised in Pakistan, Egypt and India. The Project Director along with a team of experts is to make presentations on the theme of the project in Karachi, Islamabad, Cairo, New Delhi and Bangalore. The first discussion of the series was held at the University of Karachi on 28th February 1998, which I was privileged to attend. The Ford Foundation was represented by Dr. George K. Tanhan, Ph. D., formerly Vice President of Rand Corporation, and now a writer and scholar on South Asian Affairs and International Relations.

The key-note address was given by Dr Iftikharuzzaman, from Bangladesh who is at present Director of the Regional Centre for Strategic Studies at Colombo in Sri Lanka. He talked on the imperatives of peace process in South Asia. Abstract of his talk is given below:-

Peace making is a complex, comprehensive and long drawn process that in the ultimate analysis aims to create a situation in which a State will no longer consider another as a source of threat to its security. Measures to achieve peace should include instruments of political, diplomatic, military, economic and social nature. The conception of, and approach to security in South Asia remains mainly conventional, State-centric and predominantly realist. Any substantial progress towards durable peace will depend on whether and how far the currently hesitant trends toward rethinking security can take deeper roots in the mindset of political and bureaucratic elite of the countries of the region. The idea is to gradually depart from conventional state-centric views of national security and bring people to the forefront as the principal referent object. It is only through such rethinking that the persisting divergences in security perception of the individual member States can be bridged.

That, of course, is a tall order in a region bedevilled by not only outstanding bilateral disputes like Kashmir, but also because States perceived threatened and vulnerable both domestically as well as externally. The ideas and institutions of the State are in general weak, and the level of socio-political cohesion is low; each South Asian State is facing greater or lesser degree of political and social instability while most of them are confronting internal conflicts including insurgencies. Failure to create domestic political and socio economic instability affects security perception of the State. The degree of internal dissension and contestation is intense and there is ambiguity as to what is to be secured. Internal threats to the survival of the government are often identified with national security, often to serve regime interest. Almost every country suffers from pitfalls in the process of nation-building and national integration. The failure of the ruling elite to accommodate social, religious, and ethnic diversities and to ensure the political space for minorities and disadvantaged groups or communities have given rise to endemic political instabilities and remain a constant source of insecurity. Domestically induced threats to security are compounded by external involvement.

Prospects of peace will increase as progress is made in institutionalisation of democracy. The proposition of democratic pacifism, the thesis that democratic states are pacific and have lesser inclination to go to war has often been under challenge. It is often argued that democracies are involved in war as often as states with other regime types. The analytical foundations of the democratic peace thesis have been challenged and found tenuous. Others have argued that democratisation initially increases the possibility of going to war or confrontation while reduction of war or setting up of peace process starts only at a higher level of democratisation. Still others insist on convergence of regime-types as critical in ensuring peace or avoidance of regime-types of differing structure tend to behave differently. States governed according to republican constitution, under principles of freedom and equality are more likely to create favourable prospects for 'perpetual peace'. While the debate continues, democracies are in general significantly less likely to be involved in war.

Critical to a sustainable peace process must be a well-designed and achievable set of confidence building measures that could lead to a change in security perception. One such measure is transparency and accuracy of information which can ensure that actions and behaviour of the opponent does not constitute a threat. This can also reduce mistrust and misperception. Related to this is the benefit that can be derived from regular and frequent dialogue and consultations which can enable parties to mutually examine views, predicament, position, goals and motives. This helps participants to understand each other's concerns and perceptions, and hence the basis of action.

All these can lead to a transformation in thinking and predictability of actions, particularly if such dialogues or meetings take place between top-level policy and decision-makers, military or civil officials and political leaders. These can also help transform the enemy-image of each other that prevails in the region. Advance notification of the military exercises including the size and nature of the exercise can prevent situations where a routine military exercise or troop movement is misinterpreted as an offensive action leading to unintended conflict. Equally, exchange of information about military facilities, structures and even budgets can help build up trust and confidence. Absence of dialogue and communication breeds suspicions, and parties tend to prepare and operate on the basis of worst case scenario. On the other hand, regular contact and consultation specially between defence officials to discuss weapons acquisitions, troops structures and levels, military doctrines, security concepts and concerns can ensure transparency and render greater predictability and order in State behaviour and inter-state relations.

Equally important are imperatives of activism of the civil society groups and institutions and assertion at the grass roots level. The growing popularity of track two initiatives for greater interaction and dialogues are encouraging, and must be sustained. The institutions and groups engaged in research and education should particularly focus on sensitising younger generation of South Asians as agents of change. The role of media and education are vital; it is particularly important to review and rethink South Asian text books and knowledge and information systems that could lead to substantive transformation of each other's image. We need to ask ourselves whether and to what extent economic interdependence increases or decreases the prospects of peace in the region. The question has indeed been debated intensely by realists and liberals, and remains endless. But liberal economic interdependence increases the value of trade and other forms of economic co-operation over the other alternative which is confrontation and war. Interdependent States would, therefore, trade between themselves rather than engage in mutual tension. Realists on the other hand argue that interdependence can lead to vulnerability, providing incentives to initiate war, if only to ensure access to resources. Attempts have been made to resolve this dichotomy by introducing expectations and assurance of higher levels of trade and economic co-operations in future. Thus interdependence can foster peace only when levels of expected trade and economic co-operation in the future will be high and there is an assurance that benefits of interdependence will not be cut off as a result of partner turning into adversary. Economic interdependence can, therefore, be both peace-inducing and peace-destroying. An answer to this dynamic perspective can be sought in institutionalisation of interdependence through regional and sub-regional co-operation arrangement.

In studying the relevance of experiences from other regions like the Middle East peace process for South Asia an important aspect that cannot be underestimated is the international context. The most important factor charting the road from Madrid to Oslo was the end of the cold war which meant above all that the Arab governments lost their Soviet benefactor. No less important was the trauma of the Gulf War. The acceptance of Israel as a permanent reality on the part of Arab governments was facilitated basically by an appreciation of the changed international realities. In case of South Asia external factors, however, seem to have only secondary, if any, role in contributing to a possible peace process though these have often helped accentuate conflict in the region. Here, as long as conflicts remain more of regional creation and of structural nature, the influence of external context of change remains peripheral. Most importantly, inter-state peace process in South Asia cannot work in isolation from issues of intra-state instability and vulnerability.

Whether or not South Asia has a better future in terms of prospects for peace is not known. The kind of political institutions and process that are going to evolve in the countries would be important. The capacity of these institutions and process to make the governments sensitive to the multi-dimensional security concerns of the peoples of the region will make a difference.

Dr Iftekharuzzaman was also of the view that instability in South Asia was due to Pakistan's desire to have parity with India. This was a surprising statement as Pakistan has never coveted parity with India. Her concern has primarily been with security, and for good reason.